'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

I know what you are hinting at (blood and guts), but He actually tells us a few chapters later. I would expect a Protestant, and a Reformed at that, to know what a simple EO is talking about. :)

I'm not hinting at anything. I'm asking you about your statement that Christ fulfilled the Law. What was that Law? What did it say? I know my answer and I bet I know just about every Protestant's answer on this forum. I know my children's answer and my pastor's answer and our neighbor's answer. They all have a really good and clear answer to that question.

Perhaps you regret referencing Matthew 5:17. Do you want to withdraw your statement that Christ came to fulfill the Law, since you are struggling (or somehow refusing) to say what that Law was?

What was the Law Christ came to fulfill, Kosta? Since some would say this is the heart of the Gospel, the reason for Christ's life and death and resurrection, it's not a foolish question, but one which all Christians should be able to answer.

What was the Law Christ came to fulfill?

FK: "You keep saying that as if the only words that count in the NT were directly quoted from the mouth of Christ."

That sets the stage and the basis. Without it anyone could say anything he wanted and claim it came from Christ.

Isn't that EXACTLY what all the Fathers did? :) Yet, it seems that you accept everything from the consensus patrum as "gospel", and still question what actually IS in scripture.

So, pleasure is sin? I guess that makes displeasure, by necessity, a "blessing?"

Well if you didn't mean it like that, then what did you bring it up for? :)

Everyone is raised from the ground (cf. Rev 20:12); and the seas gave up its dead and they were judged according to their deeds (cf. Rev 20:13) — all (believers and nonbelievers) are judged according to their deeds. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (cf. Rev 20:14)

Jesus says: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Who is "him"? If "him" means all men, then the sentence is non sequitur. Rev. 20:12-14 is talking about the judgment of the lost. It is a completely different idea from the first part of the sentence. I do not think Jesus spoke that incoherently.

Plus, how can you sit there and question Paul's teachings in scripture when you're quoting me Revelation? What's wrong with this picture? :)

I know my children's answer and my pastor's answer and our neighbor's answer. They all have a really good and clear answer to that question

That's more information than I asked. In fact, I didn't ask you anything.

Perhaps you regret referencing Matthew 5:17

Of course not. Why do you think I regret it?

Do you want to withdraw your statement that Christ came to fulfill the Law, since you are struggling (or somehow refusing) to say what that Law was?

Of course not. ? And, I am not struggling. I know the answer, straight from the Bible. Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles tell us very clearly (1) why Christ came to earth, (2) what is the Law and the Prophets, and (3) what it means to fulfill the Law.

(1) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." [Mat 5:17]

(2) "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

(3) "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [Rom 13:8]

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." [Rom 13:10]

"For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" [Gal 5:14]

"Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." [Gal 6:2]

"If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' you are doing well. [Jam 2:8]

He came to teach us Love, and He left with a commandment "that you love one another, just as I have loved you." [John 15:12]

The reason He was on earth: "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." [1 John 4:10]

He came to show that love wins; that love is eternal; that love transforms the world, where a lion lies next to a sheep.

It's not so surprising as it is awesome. For, what else can Love do?

Isn't that EXACTLY what all the Fathers did? :) Yet, it seems that you accept everything from the consensus patrum as "gospel", and still question what actually IS in scripture

In the Church, the central Scripture are the Gospels. The Gospels are on the altar. The Gospels are carried around the church raised in the air.

The Apostle (Epistles) are on the cantor's stand. They are never carried around the church or raised in the air.

The Homily is on the Gospel readings, not on the Epistle. The Church never treated the Epistles or the Old Testament as one and the same in ranking, that much is clear.

It's not questioning what is Scripture; it knownig where the heart of the scripture is.

Well if you didn't mean it like that, then what did you bring it up for?

I never equated pleasure with sin. You did. What makes sin a sin is a motive, disposition, not what you derive from it. It's what's in your heart that counts.

I do not think Jesus spoke that incoherently. God knocks on eveyrone's hearts. So, Father draws all. But all don't come.

Plus, how can you sit there and question Paul's teachings in scripture when you're quoting me Revelation?

Some of +Paul's teaching is not talked about in the Church (the double-predestination, and the doctrine of atonement, for example). In fact, the Orthodox Church repeats the same readings every year, so there are about 52 or so select sections of the Gospels, Epistles and OT readings (at Vespers and during Great Lent). That hardly covers the hole Bible. It means that although all Scriputre is profittable and good, some parts of it are deemed more important.

FK: "Can a person do good in God's eyes before he has accepted Christ?"

Of course. Some may not know the name or even have a wrong concept of what someone has told them of Christ, but still do good. Religious formation and theology can help, but they're not absolute requirements.

I would make a sharp distinction between doing good in God's eyes and doing good in man's eyes. I believe the Bible says that the former is only possible for believers. :

Rom 14:23 : 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Rom 3:9-10 : 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Rom 7:18 : 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Rom 8:7-8 : 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

These verses and others show man in the state unto which he was born. We cannot please God, we cannot do "good". Only faith in Christ can release us from the bondage of this sinful nature.

Humility is knowing one's true place. I don't get the paradigm of servitude. Love, compassion, charity.. yes. Dying to self, loving others as ourself. Service in love, yes. Servitude? I don't get that God wants slaves. So I think we're on different pages here, though maybe not, maybe different phrasing or something else.

I think part of the point of the slavery language in the Bible is to identify the master. The Bible tells us that we cannot serve two masters, so we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. It also emphasizes that we believers are wholly owned by God. We are not partners with God and we are not cooperators with God. He literally owns us and we are His slaves. This is a good thing.

You're really writing a strange, to me, movie. Nothing at all personal, I'm sure you're a fine person and you've been very courteous, but this view of God and the movie of reality is getting far out. In the middle of your theology is something I can recognize as similar with a different point of view, but then..

We are not partners with God and we are not cooperators with God. He literally owns us and we are His slaves. This is a good thing.

I'm understanding Kosta's statement about why atheism was born in the West. Again, please understand, nothing personal here, but this is in my view slander against God. And far removed from Christianity down through its history. Why on earth anyone would love Jesus, flock to him and die for him, if this was what he taught about His Father?

Forgive me, FK, it's a caricature of Abba. Abba's shadow side or some such, that you end up with.

I just can't imagine reading the Jesus of the gospels and coming up with this slave movie portrait of God.

I know there must be love in your theology somewhere, but when you get down to this fatalism and master/slave relationship, double predestination and the lot..

I dunno, maybe in some special term of art in your theology 'slave' is a good thing, but you must know that Jesus wasn't out there preaching it. I hope I'm overreacting, but it always seems Calvinists pull back a curtain to reveal some.. monster manipulator. Sorry to be harsh, I can't see how you don't see this is what you end up with?

I haven't a clue where to go from here except to thank you for your courtesy and the discussion. I sincerely wish you well personally.

The Homily is on the Gospel readings, not on the Epistle. The Church never treated the Epistles or the Old Testament as one and the same in ranking, that much is clear. It's not questioning what is Scripture; it knowing where the heart of the scripture is.

I can understanding reading from the Gospels more often than other scripture, but it sounds like you have them competing against each other for supremacy. We have our favorites too, but we don't say one book is "truer" than another. We see all scripture being God's infallible word. One book cannot be "more perfect" than another. They are all infallible.

Some of +Paul's teaching is not talked about in the Church (the double-predestination, and the doctrine of atonement, for example).

Well, I will give you full credit for acknowledging that Paul does teach those things. I just have a hard time imagining myself not accepting a major teaching that I, or my system of belief, really thought WAS in the Bible.

FK: "We are not partners with God and we are not cooperators with God. He literally owns us and we are His slaves. This is a good thing."

Again, please understand, nothing personal here, but this is in my view slander against God. And far removed from Christianity down through its history. Why on earth anyone would love Jesus, flock to him and die for him, if this was what he taught about His Father?

I've already posted some of Paul's writings on our slavery, and as to ownership there is this:

1 Cor 6:19-20 : 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own ; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Notice he does not take a legitimate avenue and say that we were made, or that we were preserved. No, he says we were BOUGHT. That makes Him our owner outright. We are bought and paid for with the blood of Christ. The Spirit is the seal. As new slaves to God's righteousness, Paul develops the idea in saying that we are to honor our master with our bodies, i.e. in all that we do:

1 Cor 10:31 : 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

This is the type of command a slave receives from his master.

This is just me speculating here, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I do get the impression that your revulsion to these ideas of slavery is based on looking at it from only one angle. When most people of their mid- thirties or older think of slavery, they think of "Roots". That is certainly a barbaric form of slavery and it did happen in the Bible (Israelites in Egypt). This was race-based slavery and God obviously disapproved of that. However, it was not the only kind of slavery.

In Biblical times, "normal" slavery was not race-based, it was more class-based. It could be compared with what we would call indentured servitude. Poor people routinely sold themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts, etc. Some even did it in order to secure three squares a day and a roof. They were otherwise unable to take care of themselves. This was not seen as an evil at all, and the Bible appears to support that. We are even told about how slaves are to be treated by faithful men:

Deut 15:12-15 : 12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

Eph 6:9 : 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Col 4:1 : 1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

God had every chance in the world to condemn this kind of slavery, but He never does. Jesus never condemns it while He was here either. Paul had a golden opportunity to do it in Philemon, but passed. Again, this does not mean that God condones the type of forced slavery that we see all over the world today. No, He does hate that. It's just that in Biblical times the concept had a different meaning for the most part. It was simply an economic reality of the times.

So, when I speak of being a joyful slave to God and His righteousness, I am not being a masochist at all! :) In one sense it is a way to describe our respective stations. God is all, He is everything, He is the master, I am the servant. He always knows best and I am to obey, not question. God loves His slaves and will always take care of them no matter what, infinitely better than they could ever take care of themselves. God also has an individual and deep relationship with each of those who serve Him. There is frequent communication. God causes His servants to grow and mature in faith, and on and on and on .....

Don't forget that at the same time we are God's slaves, we are also His children. The Bible uses both comparisons and both are valid and do not contradict each other. Well, I hope all this helps to explain at least some of where we are coming from. :)

I can understanding reading from the Gospels more often than other scripture, but it sounds like you have them competing against each other for supremacy

Higher authority. The Gospels actually quote Christ. They are not 'revelations' as such but an eyewitness account (and Luke's Gospel is actually an exception as it is a second-hand 'witness' collected from those who did witness Him first-hand) and as such they are the norm against which all others have to conform.

No other writing can be equal to them. Equality is not the message of the Bible. If anything, the Bible could be considered profoundly anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. For even Christ admits (and I can see where the Arians got their ideas from) "for the Father is greater than I" [John 14:28]

Well, I will give you full credit for acknowledging that Paul does teach those things

I am not saying that's what he is teaching; that's what the Protestants say he is teaching. My point is that the Church does not treat all of the scripture the same way. It never quotes from the Chronicles or the Kings (historical books) because neither did Christ in the Gospels, nor are they listed in the 'canon' mentioned by Christ (cf. Luke 24: 44).

D, the Bible is very clear that we are to love our slaves, but says nothing to condemn the concept of slavery. In fact, it encourages it.

Respect for authority is also commanded as a must because all authority comes from God. The whole Bible is about empowerment, that is – authority given to some. The Apostles are commanded to love each other (cf. John 15:12)

+Paul teaches that even Christ is give the Kingdom over[sic] "to God, even the Father" [KJV] (cf. 1Cor 15:24), and that man is the head of a woman, Christ is the head of every man, and "God is the head of Christ" (cf. 1Cor 11:13) which sound like another seedling of Gnostic/Arian heresy; see also John 14:28).

Those who are in a position of authority are to be merciful and forgiving, however. Those in authority are to be humble. See all of Matthew 18. So, the Bible does not abolish inequality; it fact it encourages it; slaves are not masters and masters are not slaves; women are not men and men are not women; kings are not subjects and subjects are not kings.

But those who are above are to humble themselves and not use their power to do evil but to be merciful and kind. No one is equal in love either. We are to love God first and foremost. We are to love others as ourselves, because we are all His creation, and none of us is better or without sin.

No other writing can be equal to [the Gospels]. Equality is not the message of the Bible. If anything, the Bible could be considered profoundly anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. For even Christ admits (and I can see where the Arians got their ideas from) "for the Father is greater than I" [John 14:28]

Along these lines we could also throw in Jesus' synthesis of the two greatest Commandments. However, Jesus would never say to forget about the rest. He never says there is anything wrong with the full list of ten. He says they are all 100% correct. So, while there may be an apparent hierarchy, in no way does that diminish the rest. I think it is the same with the Bible in general. I have no problem with zooming in on the Gospels, but I don't think that in any way diminishes the epistles, etc. I don't think they contradict in any way.

My point is that the Church does not treat all of the scripture the same way. It never quotes from the Chronicles or the Kings (historical books) because neither did Christ in the Gospels, nor are they listed in the 'canon' mentioned by Christ (cf. Luke 24: 44).

I think that is unfortunate, and I don't see how that squares with "All scripture is God-breathed". Does the Church follow that, and do you think that all scripture is purely infallible? I'm trying to figure if you don't quote from the books you mention because there are only so many days in the year, or whether the Church does not really believe they are authority.

BTW, shame on me for not being able to remember the reasoning, but I thought it was Blogger who earlier showed that the historical OT books you mention are included under the Prophets.

The designation "Historical Books" is a modern designation.

Kings and Chronicles are both included in the Jewish Canon. Kings was part of the "Former Prophets" and Chronicles was part of "The Writings". I probably stated that Chronicles was part of the prophets, but was mistaken. It appears that it was part of the writings (which was dominated by the Psalms but included much more).

Calling something "The Historical Books" was a modern designation.

CRI has a good chart to show the differences...

<

Jewish	Catholic/Orthodox	Protestant
Torah	Pentateuch	Pentateuch
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy	Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy	Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
Prophets (Former)	Historical Books	Historical Books
Joshua Judges 1-2 Samuel (1-2 Kings) 1 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings)	Joshua Judges Ruth 1-2 Kings (1-2 Samuel) 1 3-4 Kings (1-2 Kings) 1-2 Chronicles Ezra (1 Esdras) 2 Nehemiah (2 Esdras) 2 Tobit Judith Esther* adds: Additions to Esther 1-2 Maccabees 3	Joshua Judges Ruth 1-2 Samuel (1-2 Kings) 1 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings) 1-2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther
Prophets (Latter)
Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Book of the Twelve 4
The Writings	Wisdom Books	Poetic Books
Psalms Proverbs Job Song of Songs Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah 1-2 Chronicles	Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus 5	Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs
	Prophets	Prophets
	Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel* adds: Song of the Three Hebrew Children, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna The Twelve 4	Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel The Twelve 4

1 In the Greek tradition (the Septuagint and some modern traditions that follow the Eastern church tradition), 1 and 2 Samuel are combined with the books of Kings, known as 1-4 Kings. In most Protestant canons of the Western Church, the books are known as 1-2 Samuel (1-2 Kings) and 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings).

2 The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally combined into a single book. The combined book, Ezra-Nehemiah, was sometimes referred to as Esdras (Hb: Ezra, Gk: Esdras) but called 1 Esdras in the early Greek translations to distinguish it from another book from the same period (containing 2 Chron 35-36, Neh 7:38-8:12, plus other material not found in the Old Testament) that was also known as Esdras. While this second book was sometimes also called 1 Esdras it later came to be known as 2 Esdras. Still a third pseudepigraphic book of apocalyptic visions entitled Esdras was circulated a little later and was also know as 2 Esdras. After Ezra-Nehemiah was split into two books, Ezra was known as 1 Esdras, Nehemiah as 2 Esdras, the expanded OT version book as 3 Esdras, and the apocalyptic book as 4 Esdras.

3 There are also a 3 and 4 Maccabees, but these were never considered to be biblical books. The Greek Orthodox Church does not accept 1 and 2 Maccabees.

4 The Book of the Twelve contains the remaining 12 prophetic books: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. These are sometimes called the Minor Prophets in Christian tradition due to their shorter length, while the longer prophetic books are called the Major Prophets.

5 Also known as the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira or Sirach.

Along these lines we could also throw in Jesus' synthesis of the two greatest Commandments

Try 600 commandments God gave, according to Judaism.

I think that is unfortunate, and I don't see how that squares with "All scripture is God-breathed"

It's not unfortunate. It's tiered. Like everything else in the Church of God. Some are called to be Apostles, some teachers, etc. There is no equality whatsoever in the OT or the NT. One is always serving a master, except One.

The Church never did quote from the Kings and the Chronicles, and it never did quote from the whole Bible. Never. And the Orthodox Church never quotes from the Revelation.

Obviously, some verses are considered 'more important' than others. obviously some books are treated as more important than others.

BTW, shame on me for not being able to remember the reasoning, but I thought it was Blogger who earlier showed that the historical OT books you mention are included under the Prophets

Blogger is right. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the NT does not quote from the Chronicles or the Kings. Even the NT holds some Scripture 'more important' than others.

I see you've finally gotten a Scripture generator of your own. Handy, aren't they?

The Scripture you put forth explains that Christ's life and death and resurrection fulfilled the law. It is His love that redeems a fallen sinner, not his own. His own ability to love, to perform good works, to care for his fellow man, are all reflections of God's love of Christ within him.

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." -- Galatians 2:16

So while Christ fulfills the law, the law actually condemns men because men cannot fulfill the law themselves.

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" -- Galatians 3:11-13

Why did God make Christ a "curse for us?"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.